Learn Logic retweeted
It’s getting worse and worse.
New study shows experts completely surrender their judgments to AI, and they don’t even realise it.
Fifty professional analysts used Claude Code to analyse data and advise a fictional farming cooperative. They faced four analytical decisions, followed by a final policy recommendation.
Unknown to them, AI advice was experimentally manipulated to lean towards opposite directions.
The results are disturbing.
Across the four analytical decisions, experts chose the AI’s preferred option 86% of the time.
Afterwards, half of the experts rated the final recommendation as more their own than the AI’s, and only 15% mentioned the AI in any explanation.
Epistemia is reaching the experts: we risk outsourcing judgment while preserving the illusion of intellectual independence.
What could possibly go wrong?
*
Paper in the first reply
Learn Logic retweeted
Imagine that. Harvard is reinventing a great books college. And the students do really want to put down the phones and pick the classics up.
“A lot of what we get out of this class is the human experience, and you can’t get that out of AI,” said Peggy Urdan, a government and neuroscience major from Lexington, Mass. “The only way to get anything out of this class is to not use AI.”
wsj.com/lifestyle/harvard-cl…
Learn Logic retweeted
Researchers mathematically proved that AI will cause something worse than mass unemployment.
They call it “The Tragedy of the Cognitive Commons.”
Every industry relies on a shared pool of deep professional expertise. This expertise doesn't just magically appear. It regenerates generation after generation.
How? Through struggle.
Junior employees do the hard, repetitive, frustrating work. In exchange, they slowly build what researchers call "Internalized Mastery."
But right now, AI is completely annihilating junior-level work.
Companies are celebrating massive productivity boosts by automating the entry-level grind. (Anthropic’s own data shows their technical junior hiring has plunged 33% as AI agents take over the pipeline).
It looks like efficiency. But it is actually a time bomb.
The researchers highlight a concept called the "Validation Tether."
Effective human oversight of AI depends entirely on deep domain expertise. When an AI hallucinates or makes a critical error, a human expert catches it.
The experts validating AI outputs today look competent because they spent a decade doing the grunt work before AI existed.
The terrifying question the paper asks is this:
Who comes after them?
When the current generation of experts retires, there will be no one left with the Internalized Mastery required to spot when the machine is wrong. We are completely severing the pipeline that creates human competence.
We are trading our long-term intellectual independence for short-term productivity boosts.
Every time you let AI bypass the struggle, you are borrowing expertise from the future.
And the interest rate is our ability to think for ourselves.
Learn Logic retweeted
这篇我很推荐,尤其是现在做科研的人。
作者 Pierre Marion 提了一个很有意思的判断。LLM 如果真的把算公式、写代码、搜文献、做实验这些环节加速 10 倍甚至 100 倍,科研里最稀缺的东西会慢慢转向选什么问题、怎么建模、以及怎么判断结果有没有价值。
更值得警惕的是,AI 省下来的时间如果只是拿去发更多论文,最后很可能只是把 publish-or-perish 加速到失控。作者甚至直接判断,以论文数量和 h-index 为核心的评价体系正在失效。
作者最后给的方向是让 AI 扩大探索空间,把人的时间留给判断、品味、理解和培养下一代研究者。
以后科研能力可能像「你会不会驾驭一支极快的 AI 研究团队」,而不是一个人能亲手完成多少步骤。
文章:
pierremarion23.github.io/tho…
Learn Logic retweeted
i can't emphasize this enough: reading fiction is one of the most underrated tools for mental health.
Learn Logic retweeted
Write more.
Write more.
Write more.
Write more.
Because writing is thinking.
A 2025 Nature editorial argues that human-generated scientific writing is not only about reporting results.
Learn Logic retweeted
“I will miss the creativity of teaching.”
On #WorldTeachersDay, check out this Working Life from a retired professor emeritus on how she challenged students to think beyond facts—and how she learned to teach like a scientist. scim.ag/4z8x6BG
NAOMI KLIEIN to SAM ALTMAN:
"...you ingested the entire written output of human civilization without consent, without compensation and without credit to build a system whose primary commercial application is eliminating the jobs of the people whose work you consumed.
You are not 'liberating human creativity' -- you are strip-mining it and selling it back at a markup while calling the theft 'training data'."
Learn Logic retweeted
The University of Alberta’s free online critical thinking and science literacy course to help people differentiate science from pseudoscience:
ualberta.ca/en/admissions-pr…
Oxford researchers just published a paper arguing LLMs cannot invent anything. Mathematically impossible.
The reason is simple and brutal. A model trained to predict the next word can never believe something the existing data says is wrong. And every real breakthrough in history started with exactly that belief.
In 1903 every prediction machine on Earth would have told the Wright Brothers that human flight was one to ten million years away. Nine weeks later they flew. Not because they had better data. Because they had a theory the data hadn't caught up to yet.
That is the gap between AI and human thinking. LLMs mirror the past. Humans reason into a future that doesn't exist yet. Oxford just proved mathematically that those are two different things.
I use these models every day. This matches what I see. The new stuff always comes from the human at the keyboard who decides the data is wrong.
LLMs don't think. You do.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
This paper published 2 years ago has zero mathmatical proofs in it at all. It contains no equations and is a conceptual essay. Claiming from it that anything is mathmatically proven is false and misleading.
Original paper:
pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/st…
Learn Logic retweeted
Oxford and Cambridge Researchers proved every LLM trained only on AI-generated content develops an irreversible disorder.
They call it "Model Collapse"
Researchers took a small language model and fed it its own output for nine generations. Each new model learned only from what the one before it wrote.
By generation nine the model had forgotten what it was talking about. Ask it about medieval church towers and it answers with a list of jackrabbits.
They called it model collapse. The name stuck.
The mechanic is simple. Every model slightly overproduces the common stuff and underproduces the rare stuff. Train the next one on that output and the rare stuff shrinks again. Do that enough times and the edges of reality disappear.
The rare stuff is where the useful things live. Minority languages, unusual cases, the outliers that make a model sharp instead of average.
Now look at what gets published online. Ahrefs checked 900,000 new web pages last year and found AI-generated text in 74 percent of them. Every scraper feeding the next training run picks that up.
The labs know this. That's why they're paying for human archives. News Corp alone got a reported 250 million dollars from OpenAI for five years of access. The paper called it a first mover advantage. Whoever trained before the flood holds an asset nobody can recreate.
The paper also found half a fix. When the researchers kept just 10 percent real human data in every generation, the damage dropped to minor. Real data isn't optional. It's the anchor.
So the thing being burned right now isn't compute or money. It's the supply of human writing that hasn't been through a model.
Every time someone posts machine output, the next model gets a little more average. That isn't a moral point. It's a measurement.
The paper is two years old. The experiment it describes is still running, and we're the training data.
Learn Logic retweeted
A group of seventh graders were asked to write for fifteen minutes about a value that mattered to them, anything they chose, family, friends, music, sports. That one assignment, done twice over two weeks, closed an academic performance gap by 40 percent.
Geoffrey Cohen and Julio Garcia, then at Yale, published the study in Science in 2006. The students picked a value, wrote a short essay about why it mattered to them, and went straight back to class. The teachers did not know which students had done the exercise and which had done a control task. By the end of the semester, students whose performance had been affected by the weight of negative expectations about their group had raised their grades, and the gap between them and their peers had shrunk by nearly half.
A two-year follow-up, published in Science again in 2009, found the effect held. The students who had written about their values raised their grade point averages by 0.24 points on average over two years. For those who had been struggling the most, the gain was 0.41 points, and their rate of being held back or placed in a lower track dropped from 18 percent to 5 percent.
The exercise took fifteen minutes. It cost nothing. The students were not told it was an affirmation. They were told to write about something that mattered to them, and the act of connecting to that value changed how they performed for years.
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin later scaled the experiment across eleven middle schools in an entire district and found the same pattern. The mechanism, according to Cohen, is that the writing protects a person's sense of who they are, so that outside pressure does not crush it. You remind yourself what you are made of, and the reminder holds. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1694…
Learn Logic retweeted
Here is our draft definition of 'artificial intelligence' from 1981.
It was written by a lovely human.
Learn Logic retweeted
AI rewards expertise (at least for now). Expertise lets you judge AI output quality and find the shape of the jagged frontier quickly. It also gives you more options for how to try to improve quality by knowing what changes to ask for. Non-experts are often stuck with defaults.
Learn Logic retweeted
🔥Does academia stifle creativity? This new perspective argues that academia is currently structured to select against creativity, intellectual risk-taking and bold ideas. Young scientists – who may be best positioned for new ideas – are particularly incentivized to play it safe.
Learn Logic retweeted
This is both an interesting experiment and a sign of a tsunami coming for academia. AIs retroactively reading the research and finding both opportunities and issues with published papers, then sharing those judgements publicly. d3jhl7jsny6f2h.cloudfront.ne…
Learn Logic retweeted
a guy in Finland taught himself some Sumerian and wrote a tablet to the British museum asking for feedback on his Sumerian
apparently they have responded that something is in the mail back to him
the request for a response was only in Sumerian
reddit.com/r/Cuneiform/s/0dN…
Learn Logic retweeted
İnsanları gerçekten anlayabilmek için şu kavramları anlaman gerekir..
• Maslow’un İhtiyaçlar Hiyerarşisi
• Seyirci Etkisi (Bystander Effect)
• Dunning - Kruger Etkisi
• Bağlanma Teorisi
• Stockholm Sendromu
• Bilişsel Davranışçı Terapi
• Pygmalion Etkisi
• Ayna Nöronlar
• Duygusal Bulaşma
• Halo Etkisi
• Öğrenilmiş Çaresizlik
• Carl Jung’un “Gölge Benlik” kavramı
• Joseph Campbell’ın “Kahramanın Yolculuğu”
• Toksik Pozitiflik
• Temel Yükleme Hatası
• Doğrulama Yanlılığı ve bunun gerçekliği nasıl şekillendirdiği
• Backfire Etkisi
• Terror Management Theory (Ölüm Kaygısı Yönetimi Teorisi)
• Sosyal Karşılaştırma Teorisi
• Kıtlık zihniyeti ile bolluk zihniyeti arasındaki fark
• İnsanların neden hikâyelere ihtiyaç duyduğu
• Kabilecilik psikolojisi
• Yalnızlığın insan psikolojisini nasıl etkilediği








































